Suggestions

IGP

The title of this thread is Suggestions: General

The OP begins ...............

"Please add your general suggestions for Genes Reunited."


It does NOT specify "suggestions for improving technical enhancements"

It says, and means, suggestions for general IMPROVEMENTS to GR ................ that can be your enhanced technology or improvements to the general usability of the Board.

Since when IGP???

This board is for you to add your suggestions for changes you would like to see made to Genes Reunited. We will be unable to respond to each post individually, but we will be checking the suggestions regularly and taking your suggestions on board.

I believe that the Suggestions Board was originally intended for members to suggest new technical enhancements to the site's computer functionality of the website.

Can we all get back to doing that please.

Have not read this thread through, so apologies if been said before.

But I believe that many Opening Posts are reported to lose the whole thread. I think that should not be allowed.

I think if someone feels so strongly about the Opening Post, they should write a pm to Genes and to the Opening Poster and leave a comment on the thread about what they have done and why.

If it is obviously against the rules (ie racist remark) the Opening Poster will probably either remove thread or amend Opening Post. And the incident can be reviewed by Genes against their guidelines and Opening Poster and Reporter can be told of their adjudication.

Obviously if reporter is non-paying, it makes it more difficult. But why should they be allowed to join in when they don't pay any subs?

I have a suggestion which might help in cutting the number of error messages received when threads become large.

It should only be implemented if in fact the software team agree that it could make an improvement when using large threads.

Basically it would involve defining an ideal maximum size for a thread and when that limit is reached (it need not be an exact limit) then Genes lock the original and start a new one. I am assumiing something like 5000.

It need not be done for all large threads only the ones that are in current frequent use. Also for existing large threads it only needs to be done once - the previous thread does not need to be split any more.

The important thing is what is done as the last post of the old thread and the fist post of the new thread.

I suggest that Genes start the new thread with the same title but with 'continuation' or 'part 2' added. The first post contains a copy of the original first post and author and date and, most important, a link to the old thread.

Then Genes add a final post to the old thread and lock it. The final post should contain a link to the new thread and an explanation.

Everyone who contributed to the old thread will still have it in their 'My Threads' and those who watch it will have an indication of change and can subscribe to the new one. By subscribe I mean make a post on or add to the watched thread list.

My reasoning is that it is the large amout of data involved in such threads that leads to timeouts and probably the associated processing in updating thread lists. Members who are not active would not subscribe to the new thread.

That would be a good idea Joy as it will avoid members being drawn in whilst still allowing them to air their views directly to GR through the contact us facility which is what I will be using in the future,

May be worth sending this request/suggestion direct to GR through the contact us facility

Roy

After the first post on a thread has been requested for review, please could the thread be locked whilst awaiting a decision on the report?

nameslessone ...........


a post can always be edited, no matter how long it has been since it was first posted.


I've long suggested that members take things into their own control, until GR can institute a system whereby "Edited, (number of edits, date(s) and time)" can be automatically added


That is to add

"Edited, date, time, reason"

at the end of any post that edited more than about 3 minutes after posting.



I try always to do this myself ........ even if it is only to correct a spelling mistake, but especially if it is to add/remove a word that changes the meaning, or change information.

I would like to see changes to the 'Edit' system.

Presently, major changes can be made to a post some time after the post has been made. Making it very difficult for newcomers to a Thread understand as following posts may by then have no relevance to what appears to be the OP.

I would quite like some indication of the date of the first post on each thread on the board summaries even if it is only the year.

That would make it easier to see when a thread is an old one that someone has revived.

Hi Sylvia,

Many thanks for the suggestion. I'll give that a go.

To be honest though, the surname boards were really good at one time, i don't know why they went and changed something that didn't need fixing. Seems to be typical of this site now.

If it wasn't for a new contact (just when my subscription had come up due) I would have left this site ages ago (as many appear to have already done), as it has gotten progressively worse over the last couple of years.

Regards

Chris

Chris


have you tried using Advanced Search???


That searches each Board individually.


Drives most of us crazy .......... because we're often searching for something, but don't know which Board we need ...................... and having to search each Board individually is enormously time wasting for us.

But it might be what you are looking for




sylvia

My suggestion is to do with the 'find ancestors' board (specifically, although could be applied to all the other boards as well).

PROBLEM
When conducting a search of this board for a specific term (be it a surname, place name or other word) the result that comes up is usually pretty useless, as there are posts that have nothing to do with the topic being searched (I am getting games etc from the other 'general' boards), or are too old to be relevant any longer.

SUGGESTION
Please limit the search capability to only the 'finding ancestors' board (or whatever board is being searched), AND please put the results in a chronological order, with newset on the first page.

Thanks

Chris

I live in a cottage built in 1650 and it would be helpful to be able to access the census records by county, then town, then parish, and eventually get the records for my road. This is possible on Ancestry.com but I have been unable to find a similar facility on GR. Is there one? I have had to try and find names of families living in the road from one year and hope they appear a decade later! Not ideal. I am also researching history of local pub but that only goes back to the 1860s so not such a problem!! Also, any ideas on house research prior to the census records? Thanks

My suggestion is STOP SHOWING THAT SILLY WHOA! MESSAGE WHENEVER WE TRY TO PRINT OUR TREE you know it will never be fixed. I have wasted 12 months subscription which (expires today) trying to get HELP in printing my tree, I have been contacting Support the whole time, I have had replies, ie we are working on a solution??? but it is still not available, what is the point in renewing when a member cannot have a paper record if that is what they choose to have? The facility to print is still shown on TREE.
:-D :-( :-S

Thank You Jax..I will go and read through it all. I may find something useful...

Jenny X :-)

Hi Jennifer

Here is another thread about it

http://www.genesreunited.co.uk/boards/board/suggestions/thread/1316682

I'm not sure if this is the right place to write my message so please forgive me if I am wrong.

I keep getting requests to view my tree with no info on who the person is they are looking for. I know this is a GR thing with this message being drafted to suit all, but whilst its quicker for the sender to ask for tree access it is more of a hassle for me having to write to ask who they want info on.

Can GR scrap this message please.

Jennny

I am sorry but the thread I referred to a couple of messages ago has now gone.

Thank you, Ken.